Samuel Hahnemann was the originator of homeopathy, a system of medical treatment devised under the principle summed up by the phrase, “like is cured by like” [Hahnemann 1796]. Drugs which when given to healthy persons cause certain specific symptoms are to be given to patients when they present to their doctors with the very same symptoms.
Hahnemann argued that only infinitesimally small doses were needed because the disease produced an abnormal sensitiveness to the given drug, provided that the correct remedy had been chosen. Another principle was that a second dose should not be given until the first had ceased to act.
When homeopathy was introduced it became popular in the 19th century and probably served a useful purpose in checking the dangerously excessive drugging, bloodletting, purging, and induced vomiting that were then prevalent [Guthrie 1945; Ackerknecht, 1968].
The dogmatism of Hahnemann’s system separated it from the mainstream of scientific development [Ackerknecht, 1968] but its survival as a cult with a relatively small following suggests that it may still, at least partially, fulfill this role [Relton et al. 2017].
The technique of “dry needling” so-called myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) [Simons et al. 1999] became popular with physical therapists during the 1990s and has remained so to this day [Dunning et al. 2014].
Remarkably, the practice is based upon the same principle as that devised by Hahnemann – “like is cured by like”.
In this case the “disease” being treated is “myofascial pain” localised to a trigger point (TrP) within voluntary muscle or other soft tissues. Those who believe that this is true postulate the existence of a lesion caused by “direct trauma or overuse” [Martín-Pintado-Zugasti et al. 2018].
The recommended therapy for such pain is to insert a needle directly into the muscle where the TrP is thought to reside. However, post-injection pain is not uncommon and is caused by “tissue injury produced by the needle and the following inflammatory reaction” [Martín-Pintado-Zugasti et al. 2018]. Animal experimental studies have been confirmatory of such an injury [Domingo et al. 2013].
Some experts consider that benefit from the technique of needling can be attributed to the destruction of the allegedly dysfunctional motor endplates producing the MTrPs as well as the related sarcomere shortening of myocytes [Dommerholt et al. 2006].
Martín-Pintado-Zugasti et al.  claim that post-injection pain is “fundamentally different from the pathophysiology of the MTrP itself”. They base this opinion solely on the way in which some patients describe that pain as being different to their original pain. They did not consider the possibility that the original pain might have been wrongly attributed to the MTrP and that the tissue being needled did not in fact harbour a source of nociception [Quintner et al. 2015].
The number of needle insertions and the pain perceived during needling is positively correlated with the intensity of post-needling soreness in healthy subjects [Martín-Pintado-Zugasti et al. 2015]. This observation suggests that there is a direct relationship between the amount of tissue damage caused by the needle and the intensity of post-needling soreness.
Lewitt  mentioned that a “reactivation of pain may occur several hours later or on the following day” and that this usually lasts for 1-2 days. Simons et al.  recommended waiting until the soreness had resolved before repeating the procedure.
There has even been a suggestion that soreness following dry needling might be seen as a “positive sign rather than a negative experience that requires special care” [Dommerholt et al. 2015]
The conclusion seems inescapable that an actual lesion is being created in muscle through dry needling in a futile attempt to heal a muscular lesion that has never been shown to exist.
In other words, Hahnemann’s homeopathic principle lives on, but in another guise as a cultish practice that today lies well outside the mainstream theory and practice of scientific medicine.
Ackerknecht EH. A Short History of Medicine. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1968: 145.
Domingo A, Mayoral O, Monterde S, Santafé MM. Neuromuscular damage and repair after dry needling in mice. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine Volume 2013, Article ID 260806, 10 pages http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/260806
Dommerholt J, Mayoral del Moral O, Gröbli C. Trigger point dry needling. The Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy. 2006; 14(4): 70–87.
Dommerholt J, Hook T, Grieve R, Layton M. A critical overview of the current myofascial pain literature – July 2015 Journal of Bodywork & Movement Therapies 2015; 19: 482-493.
Dunning J, Butts R, Mourad F, et al. Dry needling: a literature review with implications for clinical practice. Phys Ther Rev 2014; 19(4): 252-265.
Guthrie D. A History of Medicine. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1945: 219-220.
Hahnemann S. Versuch über ein neues Prinzip zur Auffindung der Heilkräfte der Arzneissubstanzer nebst einigen Blicken auf die bisherigen. Journ pract Arzneykinde 1796; 2(3): 433.
Lewitt K. The needle effect in the relief of myofascial pain. Pain 1979; 6: 83-90.
Martín-Pintado-Zugasti A, Pecos-Martín D, Rodríguez-Fernández AL, et al. Ischemic compression after dry needling of a latent myofascial trigger point reduces post-needling soreness intensity and duration. PM R. 2015; 7: 1026-1034.
Martín-Pintado-Zugasti A, Mayoral del Moral O, Gerwin RD, Fernández-Carnero J. Postneedling soreness after myofascial trigger point dry needling: current status and future research. Journal of Bodywork & Movement Therapies 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2018.01.003.
Quintner J, Bove G, Cohen M. A critical evaluation of the “trigger point” phenomenon. Rheumatology 2015; 54: 392-399.
Relton C, Cooper K, Viksveen P, et al. Prevalence of homeopathy use by the general population worldwide: a systematic review. Homeopathy 2017;106(2):69-78. doi: 10.1016/j.homp.2017.03.002. Epub 2017 Apr 7.
Simons DG, Travell JG, Simons LS. Myofascial Pain and Dysfunction. The Trigger Point Manual, Vol 1. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1999.